Mervin Ozirny

The appellant, a young offender, was charged with aggravated sexual assault against a five-year-old child.

At trial, the unsworn testimony of the child was corroborated as to the occurrence of the assault, but no independent evidence implicated the appellant as the perpetrator.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant, holding that corroborating evidence must connect the accused to the crime.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 586 of the Criminal Code, the corroborating evidence need only confirm the child's story in some material particular, and does not strictly need to implicate the accused independently.

The appellants, elementary school students, were acquitted at trial of sexually assaulting a fellow student.

The trial judge had a reasonable doubt as to their involvement and found the date of the offence was an essential element that had not been proved.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred in considering the evidence of the complainant and an accomplice in isolation.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appellants' appeal, holding that the trial judge's failure to consider the evidence in its totality was the result of misdirection, which constituted an error of law alone giving the Court of Appeal jurisdiction to intervene.

The appellants, young offenders, were acquitted at trial of sexually assaulting a seven-year-old fellow student.

The trial judge acquitted them because the exact date of the offence could not be established, finding that time was an essential element of the offence.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the exact time of an offence need not be proven unless it is an essential element of the offence or crucial to the defence (such as when an alibi is raised).

The Court also affirmed that a common sense approach, rather than a strict adult standard, should be applied when assessing the credibility of child witnesses, and that expert testimony regarding the behavioural characteristics of sexually abused children is admissible and helpful.